Case 6001548/2024 · Employment Tribunal
B Sims v University Hospitals Plymouth, NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001548/2024
- Decision date
- 8 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Winfield REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
B Sims
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent's 22 November 2024 application sought to strike out an unfair dismissal claim and a holiday pay/unlawful deduction of wages claim on the basis that they were presented out of time. The tribunal found that the relevant deadline for the unfair dismissal claim was 4 April 2024, after ACAS early conciliation ended on 4 March 2024, but the ET1 was lodged on 7 April 2024.
Applying rule 38(1)(a), section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the 'not reasonably practicable' approach, the tribunal took the claimant's case at its highest and accepted that the process had been difficult and stressful and that there had been IT and communication problems. It also considered the claimant's explanation that they believed 7 April 2024 was the deadline and noted that there was no formal extension of time.
The tribunal nevertheless found that there was no precise or specific reason why the claim could not have been presented by 4 April 2024, and that the claimant's mistaken belief about the deadline was insufficient. It held that there were no reasonable prospects of success on the limitation issue and struck out the unfair dismissal claim. The written reasons refer to a holiday pay/unlawful deduction claim in the strike-out application, but the operative judgment expressly disposes only of the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reasons also refer to an unlawful deduction of wages/holiday pay claim in the strike-out application, but the operative judgment expressly strikes out only the unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- rule 38(1)(a) ET Rules
- s.111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- overriding objective
- HM Prison Service v Dolby
- Mechkarov v Citibank N A
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Hassan v Tesco Stores
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.